Which integrations are available for this server?

Allows AI assistants to manage tasks and send push notifications to iOS devices via the companion iOS app.

How do I use Task Management MCP Server?

1. Click on "Deploy Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Task Management MCP Server Create a high-priority task to review the pull request" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

Task Management MCP Server

by Aayush9029

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

NOTE

iOS app can be downloaded here

https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id6746345658

MCP Client for iOS

Auto Release pages-build-deployment PyPI version Python License: MIT

Verified with

Task Management MCP Server

Bridge AI assistants with real-world task management

This MCP server connects Claude Desktop, Cursor, and other AI tools to a powerful task management API, enabling intelligent workflows that create, update, and track tasks automatically on your iPhone.

What You Can Do

Ask Claude to create tasks during coding sessions
Let Cursor update task status as it completes work
Get notifications on your iPhone when AI assistants finish tasks
Track progress across multiple AI tools and automation scripts
Manage priorities with AI-suggested urgency levels

Perfect for developers who want their AI assistants to collaborate on real projects with automatic task tracking and mobile notifications.

Related MCP server: AiDD MCP Server

Quick Start

1. Get Your API Key

Download the iOS app here

2. Choose Your Setup

For Claude Desktop (Recommended)

Add this to ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "task-manager": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "mcp-remote",
        "https://task-mcp-server.aayushpokharel9029.workers.dev/sse?apiKey=YOUR_API_KEY"
      ]
    }
  }
}

For Cursor or Other MCP Clients

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "task-manager": {
      "url": "https://task-mcp-server.aayushpokharel9029.workers.dev/sse?apiKey=YOUR_API_KEY"
    }
  }
}

Replace YOUR_API_KEY with your actual API key.

3. Start Using It

Once configured, your AI assistant can:

"Create a high-priority task to review the pull request"
"Show me all pending tasks"
"Mark the deployment task as completed"
"Update the bug fix to urgent priority"

Available Tools

The server provides these capabilities to AI assistants:

`create_task`

Create new tasks with title, description, priority, and notification settings.

`list_tasks`

View all tasks with optional filtering by status, priority, or date.

`get_task`

Get detailed information about any specific task.

`update_task`

Modify task properties including status, priority, and description.

`delete_task`

Remove completed or cancelled tasks.

Technical Details

Documentation

REST API Documentation:
- FastAPI Docs
- ReDoc
MCP Server Documentation: https://task-mcp-server.aayushpokharel9029.workers.dev

API Details

Authentication: API key via X-API-Key header
Supported Priorities: LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, URGENT
Supported Statuses: TODO, IN_PROGRESS, DONE, CANCELLED

Security & Privacy

API Key Isolation: Each key maintains completely separate task data
No Cross-Access: Tasks are never shared between different API keys
Secure Communication: All requests require authentication headers
Real-time Updates: Changes sync instantly to your iPhone app

Need Help?

If your AI assistant isn't connecting:

Check that your API key is correctly formatted
Verify the configuration file location
Restart your MCP client after configuration changes

For issues or feature requests, visit the GitHub Issues.

GitHub: @Aayush9029 • Twitter: @aayushbuilds

Available Tools

5 tools

create_taskC

Create a new task

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Task title
`description`	No	Task description
`status`	No	Task status (TODO, IN_PROGRESS, DONE, CANCELLED)
`priority`	No	Task priority (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, URGENT)
`notify`	No	Whether to send notifications for this task

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility but simply restates the name. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., notifications, authentication needs) or return behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief (5 words) but at the expense of substantive content. It lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits return values, error handling, and usage context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema, but does not contradict it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('task'), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_task or delete_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_task for modifications). There are no prerequisites or contextual hints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

delete_taskB

Delete a task

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	Yes	Task ID

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, and the description only says 'Delete a task' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, cascading effects, or return value. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return behavior or error conditions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (taskId described), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete a task' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task, get_task, list_tasks, and update_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use (when you want to delete a task) but provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, side effects, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_taskB

Get a specific task by ID

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	Yes	Task ID

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error handling behavior (e.g., 404 on missing task). The description carries the full burden but is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though a bit more detail on usage could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core action and required input, but lacks information about the return value or potential errors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'taskId' described as 'Task ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get a specific task by ID', specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'task'. It distinguishes from list_tasks by indicating a single task retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when a task ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tasks. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list_tasksA

List all tasks

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only list operation, but does not mention output format, pagination, ordering, or whether deleted tasks are included. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two words and completely free of filler. It is front-loaded and every word adds meaning, making it appropriate for such a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not disclose return value structure or any edge-case behavior, which would be helpful for a complete contextual picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List all tasks' clearly states the action (list) and resource (tasks), with 'all' specifying scope. It distinguishes itself from task-related sibling tools like create_task, update_task, and delete_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the tool name and sibling context: it is for retrieving tasks. However, the description offers no explicit 'when to use' or 'alternatives' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

update_taskC

Update an existing task

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taskId`	Yes	Task ID
`title`	No	New task title
`description`	No	New task description
`status`	No	New task status (TODO, IN_PROGRESS, DONE, CANCELLED)
`priority`	No	New task priority (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, URGENT)
`notify`	No	Whether to send notifications for this task

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects like notification triggering, partial update behavior, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but it lacks structure and omits essential context. While concise, it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters, failing to earn its place as a useful guide.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how partial updates are handled. A complete description would provide more context for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention parameters at all. However, the schema itself is well-documented, so the neutral score is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing task', making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_task or delete_task, as it could specify which fields are updatable or under what circumstances.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_task or delete_task. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

5 tool updatesv2.0.1Jun 21, 2026
- First observedcreate_task
- First observeddelete_task
- First observedget_task
- First observedlist_tasks
- First observedupdate_task

Deploy Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Scored 2026-06-22 00:01 across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation on tasks (create, delete, get, list, update) with no overlap, making them easy to differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_task, delete_task), with only a minor pluralization in list_tasks, which still adheres to the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering the core CRUD operations for task management, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: create, read (single and list), update, and delete, with no obvious gaps for basic task management.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

CalmLoop Task Manager
in.calmloop
Manage tasks, Focus Zone, notes, projects, and task history from compatible AI assistants.
Project Management Note Taking
1
MeisterTaskOAuth
com.meistertask
Create and manage MeisterTask projects, tasks, and notes from your AI assistant.
Project Management Workplace & Productivity
2
OrbitOAuth
io.github.Noveum
Task management for people and AI agents, with scoped OAuth access to issues, projects, and docs.
Project Management Workplace & Productivity
130
BleepOAuth
com.usebleep
Create Tasks and run Workflows in Bleep from Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants.
App Automation Project Management
2

Related MCP Servers

Todoist MCP Server
Workplace & Productivity App Automation Project Management
Hint-Services
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Connects AI assistants to Todoist for comprehensive task management, enabling natural language creation, updating, and organization of tasks, projects, sections, and labels.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-11-10 23:06 UTC)
9
3
MIT
AiDD MCP Server
Note Taking App Automation Project Management
AiDD-app
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Integrates Apple Notes with AI-powered task extraction and prioritization, enabling automatic processing of notes into actionable items and syncing across multiple productivity services like Google Tasks, Todoist, Notion, and more.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-02-27 19:30 UTC)
4
32
1
MIT
Todoist MCP Server
App Automation Workplace & Productivity Project Management
Geralt1983
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to manage Todoist tasks, projects, sections, and labels through natural language, supporting task creation, updates, completion, and intelligent organization of your workflow.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-11-23 05:37 UTC)
9
MIT
Todoist MCP Server
Project Management Workplace & Productivity App Automation
koki-develop
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to manage Todoist tasks, projects, sections, labels, and comments through natural language conversations, providing complete control over your productivity workflow via the Todoist API.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-03-30 20:50 UTC)
271
7
MIT